|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Best Cartoon Show | |||
| Simpsons |
   
|
26 | 28.57% |
| Family Guy |
  
|
31 | 34.07% |
| South Park |
  
|
20 | 21.98% |
| King of the Hill |
  
|
5 | 5.49% |
| Other |
  
|
9 | 9.89% |
| Voters: 91. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
05-18-2005, 09:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Negative Progression roulette
Is there any way we can get the screen names of the people who think a martingale will work? I would like to play poker with them.
One other thing about the martigale system, Which side has all the risk? You are gambling against money you have ALREADY given the casino. The Casino is risking about 1 dollar.... Cheers Wino67 
|
|
#32
05-18-2005, 05:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negative Progression roulette
[ QUOTE ]
Question for all you guys who say it doesn't work: When you were younger, did you go broke trying it? [/ QUOTE ] I knew it didn't work. I tried it at an online casino anyway as cover play for bonus whoring. On about the 10th trial, I hit a bad streak and lost more than the table limit. Those who think streaks don't happen are not observant. Randomness involves a lot of long streaks of wins and losses.
|
|
#33
05-18-2005, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negative Progression roulette
[ QUOTE ]
Question for all you guys who say it doesn't work: When you were younger, did you go broke trying it? (I did. Now I'm one of you, telling all the youngsters, "It doesn't work.") [/ QUOTE ] Im 16 I realized the system didnt work when I was 13. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
|
#34
05-19-2005, 01:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Martingale +EV
I bring it up in conversation at the poker table so the sharks think I am a fish.
Stu
|
|
#35
05-19-2005, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negative Progression roulette
Me and some of my friends did some serious math trying to find a system to win in roulette. Anyway, we called this system red-black double (I'm not sure if it's the actual name, or if it has one).
The biggest flaw with most systems, which I didn't see anyone mention, is the fact that casinos impose limits on their tables. Their minimum limit is because they are greedy, and want people to bet at least a certain amount. Their maximum limit is there so that people can't walk in with giant bankrolls, and play some sort of increasing bet system. In short: The casinos ALWAYS win...NO MATTER WHAT!
|
|
#36
05-20-2005, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negative Progression roulette
[ QUOTE ]
Their maximum limit is there so that people can't walk in with giant bankrolls, and play some sort of increasing bet system. [/ QUOTE ] That seems to be a common misconception. That the martingale fails does not depend on the table limit. It gives you no advantage over the casino. Betting systems only allow you to push your losses over the horizon so you can ignore them for a while. You can't add negative numbers to make a positive number, even if there is no limit on the size of the negative numbers.
|
|
#37
05-22-2005, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negative Progression roulette
Maximum limits are not imposed to thwart the Martingale. A successful Martingale series only nets one unit. The rest of the payout of the winning bet simply gets back the money lost. Maximum limits are imposed to limit the casinos variance, so that a whale on a lucky streak (or winning a single humongous bet) doesn't kill their profit, and to protect the casinos reserve fund. A Martingale doesn't work regardless of the size of the bankroll or the betting limit. The risk vs. reward for a Martingale is ridiculous. If you start with a $1 bet, sooner or later you will find yourself risking several thousand dollars to make a net profit of $1.
|
|
#38
05-25-2005, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Negative Progression roulette
When i was younger i too believed I had invented a system that would beat the house....later I found that it already had a name and people had been getting busted with it for years....however in my process of 'developing' it I had several very profitable sessions....then...payback. The losing sessions are crushing....having several thousand taken down by the house on the 10th red in a row to try to win back my money + $10 isn't fun. Whats even worse is, as a spectator now, you watch the next number come up black.
Bottom line is it doesn't work in the long run.....but hey...we all play table games in the casino and know the odds are stacked against us....so if you feel lucky go for it...just don't be fooled into thinking you've beat the system.
|
|
#39
06-02-2005, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beat The Wheel
Roulette, straight up:
If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression. If it's not, head for the bar instead. If they don't, can you loan me a grand ?
|
|
#40
06-04-2005, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Beat The Wheel
[ QUOTE ]
If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression. [/ QUOTE ] No, you can't. With no table limits, and a bankroll larger than the house's, you still lose. Why do so many people think there is a way to arrange negative numbers to add up to a positive number?
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
